Wood v. Wood

• Decision Date: 09 September 1893
• Citation: 63 Conn. 324,28 A. 520
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: WOOD v. WOOD et al.

28 A. 520

63 Conn. 324

WOOD

v. WOOD et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Sept. 9, 1893.

Suit by Bradford R. Wood, Jr., executor of the estate of Bradford R. Wood, deceased, against Samuel Wood and others, heirs, for a construction of testator's will. Heard on questions reserved.

C. Thompson, for plaintiff.

M. W. Seymour and H. H. Knapp, for defendants.

ANDREWS, C. J. Bradford R. Wood, a long time resident of Albany, N. Y., died there on the 26th day of September, 1889, possessed of considerable real estate in that place, and also of a house and certain real estate in Westport, Conn. He left a will, duly executed to pass real estate, made on the 11th day of April, 1879, with a codicil thereto, made on the 15th day of the same month, and a second codicil dated July 29, 1885. In the original will, after sundry bequests, he gave all the rest and residue of his estate to his five children, Samuel, Thomas G., Elizabeth H., Bradford R., Jr., and J. Hamden, share and share alike. No reference was made in the will to his real estate in Connecticut. The second codicil, which is the subject of the present inquiry, is as follows: "In relation to my property at Westport, Fairfield county, Connecticut, a house and several acres of land, and now occupied by my son Samuel and family, I reserve the same for the joint or several use of my wife and daughter (therewith) as can be agreed upon with said son, in summer or in any other season of the year, as they so choose, elect, or agree; the said premises to be kept in good repair by my said son, and the taxes duly paid, and when to be no longer occupied by any member of my family, or desired, then to be sold at the best terms, and the avails to be legally divided among my heirs, if any living, and, if none, to be appropriated to the best purpose my executor can devise, or I might approve if living." Prior to the date of this codicil, one of the five children, J. Hamden Wood, had died leaving no issue. At the date of this codicil the other four children were living, and the testator's wife, Eliza. The son Samuel was married and had children, and lived in the testator's house at Westport, where he continued to reside until the testator's death, paying no rent therefor. His wife, Eliza, died before the testator, on the 25th day of March, 1887. The daughter, Elizabeth, died shortly after her father, on the 5th day of August, 1890. She was unmarried, and had always lived with her father, as a part of his family, until his death. Bradford R. Wood, Jr., was never married, and during the last few years of his father's life had lived with him as a member of his family. Whether the son Thomas G. was married or otherwise is not stated.

In the interpretation of a will, the essential object is to arrive at the intention of the testator; and there is no way by which that intention can be ascertained but the language of the instrument itself. As no part of the original will is set out save the residuary clause, we are compelled to ascertain that intention, as best we may, from the codicil alone. All the parties in the case assume that by the codicil in question the testator intended to create an estate in the Westport property in some persons. On the part of the executor it is contended that the estate so intended was to vest in the testator's wife and daughter only; on the part of Samuel Wood it is contended that such estate was to vest in the wife and daughter and himself. The testator directed, In respect to this Westport place, that "when to be no longer occupied by any member of 'my family,' or desired, then to be sold," etc. If the contention of the executor is correct, then the property should now be sold, but, if the contention of Samuel is correct, the property cannot now be disposed of. The contention turns upon the construction to be put upon the term "my family," as used in the clause just above quoted. If, by that term, the testator intended to exclude his son...